The aim of the following text is to discuss and rethink the concept of solidarity.During my research, I could realize the existence of a certain constancy in the way we think about solidarity. However competing and antagonistic the arguments of the authors here analyzed may be, we shall see that there is a common root in the way they conceive the idea of solidarity. Solidarity can be defined as universal solidarity, community or societal solidarity and also as liberatory solidarity, each having its own specific characteristics. Nevertheless, even when it comes to a thought self-defined critical or radical, the conceptions of solidarity are still subordinated to what can be called "dogmatic image of solidarity". The dogmatic image of solidarity conceives solidarity as a centripetal force that "glues" together the terms involved in the relation into a more or less harmonic unity. In it, solidarity is related to the production of new interiorities, maintenance of existing interiorities and recovery of interiorities considered lost. Its main concern is not only to produce, maintain and recover interiorities, but also to protect them and ensure their cohesion. The problem with this image is that, by subordinating the thought of solidarity, it restricts and hinders the task of thinking solidarity differently -which is my goal in this thesis. Is it possible to think of another concept of solidarity? One that reflects an expansive solidarity, like a centrifugal force that does not agglutinate nor does it produce interior spaces? If so, what are the concepts that may help us in that? In this master's thesis, I will scrutinize the dogmatic image of solidarity, analyze its main reflexes inside and outside the field of International Relations, and define what I call "dangerous solidarities", which is thought less in terms of production, maintenance and restoration of interior spaces and more in relation to its ability to destroy them.